2001 (1) TMI 480 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of finished goods for not being entered in RG-1 record, imposition of redemption fine, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, excess found goods, intention to remove goods without payment of duty, contention regarding goods pending inspection by Railway authorities, verification of stock, benefit of doubt.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise confiscating finished goods due to non-entry in the RG-1 record and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Additionally, a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. The Central Excise officers visited the appellant's factory, noted shortages and excesses, and issued a show cause notice. The dispute regarding duty was resolved under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, leaving the order to address only the excess goods issue.

During the adjudication, the appellant argued that the goods were pending inspection by Railway authorities and not fully manufactured until approved by them. The goods were produced as per Railway specifications and had no ready market for clandestine disposal. The appellant maintained that the goods were still in the factory premises, with no intention to remove them without duty payment, supported by Tribunal decisions.

The Revenue contended that the stock verification was done with the appellant's representative's assistance, who signed without protest. They claimed the appellant's assertion of goods pending inspection was an afterthought. The judge considered the submissions and found merit in the appellant's contentions. The goods were within the factory, awaiting Railway inspection, and not entered in the RG-1 due to being untested. Lack of evidence of mala fide intent or specific irregularity led to extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

The judge concluded that without proper inquiry or evidence of intent to clear goods without duty payment, the confiscation and penalty were unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the confiscation and penalty, granting relief to the appellants based on the circumstances and lack of conclusive proof against them.